He will capture a vast majority – I believe 80 percent or more – of the Hispanic vote. Hispanics do not trust Republicans, especially Paul Ryan. Mitt Romney has criticized Obama’s deferred action plan, calling it just a political ploy; Hispanics do not appreciate that.

There are many Republicans, and their family members, who now qualify for health care who did not have it previously. They may say before the election that they will vote GOP but when it comes to voting, they will not be able to vote for a Republican who will take away their health care. They won’t vote for Obama; they just won’t vote. Romney says if elected he will begin to dismantle the law his first day in office; Republican House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he would rip Obamacare out by its roots.

People are beginning to realize that many of the unemployable are not trained, or even trainable, to be viable in today’s rapidly changing, innovative business world. Americans believe that Obama is more committed to help them get training than Romney.

I realize there may be an even longer list of reasons to vote against President Obama, but barring any catastrophic event, Barack wins.
– Gil Noble, Vista

Instead of offering new ideas for the next term, our president sounds like a schoolyard bully, calling names. The things he says about his opponent – that he is a liar, that you can’t trust him, that he waffles on positions, that he’ll increase taxes – are depictions of Obama himself, as has been proven again and again. This country needs a change in direction; calling names is not a plan for the future!

I’m not interested in having a “cool” president, a party-boy playing on the golf course, cracking jokes and playing cute on Jay Leno and “The View.” We need a competent adult president who has real experience in governing, balancing budgets and working with both sides of the aisle, someone who can turn our country around. Obama has proved himself to be a charming, inept, spendthrift zero. Our country can’t stand four more years of the same.
– Nancy Johnson, Rancho Bernardo

[Irwin] Jacobs was one of the most respected patrons of San Diego. His generous philanthropic contributions to our area including education, the arts and parks have been a major benefit to all of us. However, he blew it all in having a fundraiser at his home for Michelle Obama (“First lady says voters have clear choice,” Local, Oct. 27), wherein a question was raised concerning the disgrace in Libya and she responded that she doesn’t watch television now because you can’t believe its contents. That may be true concerning her husband’s and Secretary Clinton’s comments, when irrefutable evidence has become now available. Both should follow President Nixon’s example and resign from office. No one died at Watergate. Four Americans died in Libya.

I also voted for Obama. My mistake. I don’t matter, But Jacobs disgraced all of San Diego with his endorsement of our Lying President.
– Nick Vecchio, La Mesa

However, the concern is the one he has endorsed is, at best, at the very far left of the political spectrum. That would be fine but the general still claims to be Republican. How can that be, General? Endorse whomever you wish, but please do not insult the intelligence of those in the Republican Party that still do embrace the party platform and principles of limited government intrusion in our lives.
– Wayne Parkola, Fallbrook

President Obama has been endorsed by three world leaders: Cuba’s Castro, Russia’s Putin and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. They are so proud of Obama’s achievements that they felt it necessary to share their “happiness” with us.

Obama’s achievements:

• 23 million unemployed or underemployed Americans.

• 47 million on food stamps.

• $4,500 drop in household income.

• $5.5 trillion of new debt.

• $716 billion in Medicare cuts.

• $2.6 trillion for Obamacare.

• $1.9 trillion in new taxes in Obama’s budget.

• 100 percent increase in gas prices.

Are Americans ready to join in with the dictators and keep on letting this outrage continue? The cure to this disease is Romney/Ryan. – Marie Doyle, Vista

The Oct. 18 editorial renewing the U-T editorial board’s pledge to oil (“Obama and energy: reality vs. rhetoric”) was so reminiscent of arguments of the last 40 years. Per the board, all we need to do is let the private sector find more oil and all our problems are solved. Such lame thinking ignores both the non-renewability of oil, and the tragedies in our country’s history that our dependence on oil has caused.

In the ’70s, there were outcries to prevent our dependence on oil and push Detroit and all citizens to reduce energy use. Unfortunately, the lame thinkers like those on the U-T editorial board pushed for more oil at any cost and won over the issue. The result was huge demands for oil that fund terrorists, that cause unnecessary wars and result in dead and wounded American soldiers.

Ignoring history, the “head stuck in the sand” U-T [editorial] board wants still more oil in an attempt to bow the country down again to their God, oil. They refute attempts to build renewable sources and jobs they create in favor of oil jobs. History has not taught them a thing. I just hope they can see the blood on their hands from the next oil war our country could avoid.
– Kevin Northcraft, Downtown San Diego

As a percentage of national income, Americans are taxed at a lower rate now than at any time since the 1940s. Yet Mr. Romney proposes to reduce taxes for the wealthy an additional 20 percent and cut back on programs for the poorest among us to help make up the difference. This just doesn’t seem right to me. – Cliff McReynolds, La Jolla

It is difficult to imagine a clearer distinction between presidential candidates than is before the voters next month. The incumbent emphasizes government solutions and the challenger defends the power of the private sector. It seems to me something is missing from the debate, namely principles. I am not talking about “values,” which have no intrinsic worth and which lead to relativistic chaos. I speak of firm principles, tested in the crucible of history.

The framers based the American Idea on just a few principles, including inalienable rights, limited government, separation of powers and equal protection under the law. I believe the absence of these principles from the political stage is responsible for how far we have drifted from the ideal constitutional republic.

Politicians and pundits speak of vague notions such as fairness and social justice. Equal protection under the law is inherently “fairer” than social justice precisely because it depends less on judicial interpretation. Hence the principle is a more reliable test of social worth than the notion. The lack of appreciation of our underlying principles goes a long way to explain why government expansion is tolerated as it is.
– William Lippincott, Del Mar

The women’s movement was given its moment by the Democrats after decades of effort. Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Law School graduate, was invited to speak at the convention. Her subject was the “right” to free contraception. After years at a prestigious school, sex at no cost was the primary concern that she wanted to address on the national stage.

Malala Yousafzai is a 14-year-old Pakistan girl who was shot in the head. She was targeted on her school bus by the Taliban because she had been advocating for girls’ “rights” to an education.

Lara Logan is a CBS reporter who was gang-raped in Tahrir Square while thousands celebrated the fall of Mubarak. She is an outspoken critic of the White House’s Middle East policies and challenges the claim that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been severely weakened. She is an advocate for all women living with no rights under murderous regimes.

These three examples illustrate the importance of priorities. I am ashamed of the Democratic Party for its questionable gesture to gain the vote of young women. I am offended that a vote can be purchased so cheaply. Is this what real women care about? Is this the government’s gift that we want presented to our daughters? Is this the message of an uplifting movement? Is free birth control more important than Malala or Lara?

I believe that because women produce the future generations, we have a specific role in helping to shape future generations. My political support will go to the party that knows how to prioritize and raises the bar for our country with expectations of success for all people. I am a Democrat voting for “hope and change,” so I will be voting for Romney and Ryan.
– LaVonne Boortz, El Cajon

“The Political Consequences of Uninformed Voters” is an MIT research paper authored by Anthony Fowler and Michele Margolis that analyzes the consequence of political ignorance by citizen voters. One of the overriding themes of this paper is that people who are less likely to be informed are also more likely to be of the natural Democratic base, while informed citizens are more likely to vote against incumbent presidents and support Republican presidential candidates.

If we attempt to apply this logic to the 2012 presidential race, one would think that the current issues, more specifically the austere economic conditions, have prompted a significant increase in informed voters compared to the 2008 presidential race. While this assumption is not supported by empirical evidence and will be likely dismissed by many U-T readers as flawed logic, one can still surmise that it is highly possible that this logic to be true. The question is, therefore, have the issues been enough to spark the attention of the uninformed voter base to effect a suddenly reversal to the point that they will vote Republican? Or have many of the stereotypical uninformed Democratic base remained aligned to its political behavior?

For Republicans, the hope is for a more informed voter base, as history tells us that an uninformed electorate will result in an unintended consequence – here, another four years for Obama.
– Onam Kansaki, Rancho Bernardo

We continue to subscribe to the U-T because in our opinion it is fair and gives correct reports. Lately, because of the election coming up, a lot has been printed about Obama and Romney in the U-T. It is not a personal report being given, but factual information about each candidate and, in my opinion you have been fair and true in your reporting and editorials.

Most big-city newspapers lean to the left, as most people know. But even the liberal New York Times has been more negative toward Mr. Obama recently. The only people who can’t, or do not want to, accept that President Obama failed as a leader of this country clearly don’t follow the various media sources available via television, the Internet and newspapers. Or perhaps they veer more to the left than the right, and ignore the factuality of his failures.

Obama wanted “Obamacare” even though the vast majority of Americans clearly are satisfied with their health care and did not want it. For starters, take a look at what the National Health Care did in Europe, even though the working people and employers paid into the NHC it is still a mess. I am from Britain and can attest to this personally. If Obama gets voted in, the average working-class family will be forced to pay higher taxes, pay into his health care program, which will be costly.

I don’t want to read that employment is on the rise when just about each week a known company is having to put thousands of their employees out of work because they can no longer afford to keep them. Try getting a loan to buy a house, start a business, or to keep a business going – not easy. Obama just cared about getting HIS health care going which might have been OK if the country wasn’t landsliding into an endless pit that is going to be hard for us all to climb out of.

And those people who feel sorry about Obama being picked on, don’t – he brought it on himself and has only himself to blame.

I love this, my adopted country for many years, and the hardworking people who are proud to work for what they get. They should be proud, they earned that right, and I am sure those same people would like to have a president that they can be proud of once again.
– Shirley Puzo, Bay Ho

In response to “Going face to face” (Oct. 23): It was the end of the last debate. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama were looking at each other, shaking hands and an arm on each other’s shoulder with smiles on their faces. It was as if peace between them was sincerely going on. They knew that regardless what goes on between them [for] the remaining days of their campaign, that one of them would become the president of the United States, and their commitment to the United States became their main concern.

This is what makes our country different from all others. This is what makes the United States of America.
– Sidney J. McMillan, San Diego